US v. Jacobs

Filing 920070309

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4518 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEVERN JUNIOR JACOBS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00277) Submitted: February 23, 2007 Decided: March 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Marshall Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH MARSHALL LEE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Levern Junior Jacobs was convicted of being a felon in possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2000). On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by denying his proposed jury instruction regarding confession evidence. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to issue Jacobs' proffered instruction. United States v. Helem, 186 F.3d 449, 454 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard). In particular, we find that there was sufficient evidence of Jacobs' guilt unrelated to his confession of possessing the firearm at issue. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1963) (noting that a conviction must rest on more than uncorroborated admission or confession); United States v. Hall, 396 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir. 1968) (same). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?